輔仁法學第66期

隨著不動產交易日益頻繁，立體相鄰關係紛爭、都市老化乃至都市更新等問題不斷地在社會上發生，在在涉及人民財產權之保障與限制。為確保當代法治國家下之人民得以擁有基本人性尊嚴，乃至自由行使各種基本權利，須藉由系列之管制法規範（如都市更新條例、公寓大廈管理條例等）予以規制及調和。
本文嘗試以法學方法為證立之基礎，藉由整合方法之思維證立管制法規範於財產權保障與限制之法教義學構造，彰顯法之正義機能，並擇定都市更新撤銷案──最高行政法院109年度判字第364號判決、強制出讓區分所有權案──最高法院108年度台上字第1541號民事判決為法教義學證立之素材：前者以都市更新條例第22條、第32條等規定於都市更新事業計畫之核定，檢視都市更新事業計畫之核定之適法性，及對於劃定更新單元內土地及建築物所有權人之都市更新正當程序，探究公共利益、正當行政程序於都市更新致使財產權變動所扮演之規制角色；後者以公寓大廈管理條例第22條第1項第3款、第2項強制出讓區分所有權之規定，進行財產權限制與居住環境權──適足居住權保障之檢討，衡酌全體大廈住戶與單一區分所有權人之利益，特別著眼於「共同關係」、「情節重大」如何闡釋及其具體類型化。

關鍵詞：法學方法、管制法規、財產權保障、財產權限制、都市更新、公共利益、公寓大廈、強制出讓、區分所有權、居住環境權

As real estate transactions become increasingly frequent, disputes arising from complex adjacent relationships and issues such as urban aging and urban renewal continue to occur in society, all of which involve the protection and limitations of individuals’ property rights. In order to ensure that the people in a contemporary rule-of-law state can possess basic human dignity and exercise various fundamental rights freely, a series of regulatory laws and regulations (such as Urban Renewal Act, Condominium Administration Act Building Administration Division, etc.) must be established and harmonized.
This article attempts to establish a legal foundation through legal methods, using integrated thinking to establish regulatory laws and regulations within the legal dogmatics framework of property rights protection and limitations. This highlights the justice function of the law. The article selects two legal cases for legal dogmatics establishment: the first case involves the revocation of urban renewal—the Supreme Administrative Court Judgment (109) Pan Tzu No. 364, and the second case pertains to the forced eviction unit ownership—the Supreme Court Civil Judgment (108) Tai-Shang-Tzu No.1541. In the former case, the examination focuses on the legality of the approving of urban renewal projects in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 and Article 32 of the Urban Renewal Act, as well as the proper procedures for determining ownership of land and buildings within the updated units. It explores the role of public interest and proper administrative procedures in regulating property rights changes resulting from urban renewal. In the latter case, it discusses property rights limitations and the protection of the right to a suitable living environment, in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of Condominium Administration Act Building Administration Division, considering the interests of all building residents and individual unit owners. Special emphasis is placed on how “common relationship” and “significant circumstances” are interpreted and typified.

Keywords: Method of Jurisprudence, Regulatory Laws, Protection of Property Rights, Restriction of Property Rights, Urban Renewal, Public Interests, Condominium, Forced Eviction, Unit Ownership, Right to Residential Environment

壹、 序言
一、研究緣起
二、管制法規範之導入
三、法學方法之確立
貳、 財產權之法教義學規範構造
一、財產權之追本溯源
二、財產權之制度保障
三、財產權之社會拘束
四、財產權於私法之地位
五、財產權衝突之衡平
參、 都市更新公共利益、正當行政程序與財產權保障之衡酌
一、都市更新撤銷案：最高行政法院109年度判字第364號判決
二、都市更新之公共利益
三、都市更新之正當行政程序
四、公共利益、正當行政程序與財產權保障之調和
肆、 強制出讓區分所有權、居住環境權保障與財產權限制之調和
一、強制出讓區分所有權案：最高法院108年度台上字第1541號民事判決
二、強制出讓區分所有權之規範適用
三、強制出讓區分所有權之規制在於共同關係維護
四、強制出讓區分所有權之財產權限制之妥適性
五、強制出讓區分所有權、居住環境權保障與財產權限制之衡平
伍、 結語

土地法第68條事關因登記錯誤、遺漏或虛偽致受損害者得否請求地政機關賠償與登記儲金運用的議題，甚具重要性。本研究從解釋論的角度探討該條規定，而非立法論。本研究兼採事前觀點與行為理論，並比較澳洲法（托崙斯制）與英格蘭法，論述該條解釋適用的方針，再分析該條賠償要件與適用範圍的爭議問題。
本研究認為，土地法第68條為國家賠償責任的規定，其尚略具社會保險給付的性質。解釋適用該規定時應掌握其意旨，並考量結果導向與風險分配。該規定並非僅係配合土地登記採實質審查及登記公信力而建構，亦係為了貫徹公示性。該規定不以登記機關或登記人員有故意或過失為要件。測量錯誤不當然導致登記面積錯誤，但如測量錯誤導致登記面積錯誤，則有該規定的適用。主要用途、使用分區、使用地類別、編定使用種類登記錯誤，亦有該規定的適用。因第三人之詐術行為致登記錯誤、遺漏或虛偽（包含第三人冒充所有人虛偽設定抵押權於他人，該抵押權登記被塗銷之人並非真正權利人的情形），也常有該規定的適用。

關鍵詞：登記損害賠償、賠償要件、適用範圍、國家賠償、登記儲金、保險、托崙斯制

Article 68 of the Land Act is with great importance since it is related to the issues: whether the injured person is able to claim compensation from the land office due to error, omission, or fraud in registration and the application of registration fund. This study explores the Article from the perspective of interpretation rather than legislation. This study adopts ex ante viewpoint and behavioral theory partially. This study also compares the Article with Australian law (Torrens system) and English law. This study discusses the guide to interpretation and application of the Article, and then deeply analyzes the disputed issues of the requisites and the scope of applying the Article.
This study holds that Article 68 of the Land Act is a provision of the state’s liability for compensation, which also has the nature of social insurance payment partially. When the provision is interpreted and applied, its purpose should be known well, and allocation of risk and consequentialism should be taken into account. The construction of the provision not only supports substantial review of land registration and indefeasibility, but also fulfill the publicity. The provision does not take the registry or the registration officer’s intent or negligence into consideration. Errors in measurement do not always lead to errors in registered area. However, if errors in measurement lead to errors in registered area, they are applicable to the Article. If the registration of main uses, zoning or land for designated uses is error, it is also applicable to the Article. This provision also usually applies to registration error, omission or fraud caused by fraudulent acts of a third party, including the situation that “the third party feigns as the owner to set mortgage for a person fraudulently, and the person whose registration has been cancelled is not the true right holder”.

Keywords: Compensation Due to Registration, Requisite of Compensation, Scope of Application, State Compensation, Registration Fund, Insurance, Torrens System

壹、引言
貳、解釋適用的方針
一、得參酌外國法制並考量該條略具保險的性質
二、考量該條意旨、結果導向與風險分配
參、賠償要件：是否以故意或過失為要件
一、我國實務與學說見解
二、外國法制
三、本文見解
肆、適用範圍
一、測量錯誤致登記面積錯誤
二、主要用途與使用分區等登記錯誤
三、因第三人之詐術行為致登記錯誤、遺漏或虛偽
伍、結論

我國依使用對象與發行人是否屬於同一商業體系，將預付型支付工具區分為單用途或多用途，採雙軌制規範方式。前者透過主管機關擬定定型化契約應記載不得記載事項，介入當事人間契約關係；後者因發行人提供支付服務，屬金融服務之一環，因有造成金融服務風險之可能，透過電子支付機構管理條例對發行人進行監督管理。日本依使用對象與發行人是否具密接關係，將預付型支付工具區分為自家型與第三人型，統一透過支付服務法，依其風險程度進行差異化監督管理，屬單軌制的規範方式。我國與日本雖對預付型支付工具的分類用語不同，但實質上皆依使用對象是否限於發行人作為分類標準，故於我國是否屬同一商業體系，得借鏡日本支付服務法對發行人與使用對象間是否具密接關係之認定標準。在相同分類下，規範方式卻有單軌制與雙軌制之差異，何者較為恰當？本文將從支付服務之概念確認監理界線。此外，我國電子支付機構管理條例與日本支付服務法皆屬支付監理規範，除了從虛實整合之角度觀察，具有相同的立法沿革外，尚具有相同的監理目標。然而，在立法結構、准入規定與款項保全規範上卻存在差異性。本文從酌情監理原則及尋求監理目標平衡之角度，進行比較法上的研究，分析具體監理規範之妥適性。

關鍵詞：日本支付服務法、預付型支付工具、單用途、多用途、支付服務、監理目標、酌情監理原則

In Taiwan, the advance payment methods adopt a double-track system and are classified into single-purpose or multi-purpose by whether the user and issuer are under the same business system. The former involves in a contract relationship between the parties by mandatory provisions to be included in and prohibitory provisions of standard form contract stimulated by competent authority; For the latter, as the issuer provides payment services, which is a part of financial services and may pose financial risks, the issuer is supervised and managed by The Act Governing Electronic Payment Institutions. In Japan, prepaid payment instruments are classified into self-issued and third-party issued based on whether the user and issuer have a close relationship, and a single-track regulation is adopted under the Payment Services Act, with different levels of supervision based on the risk level. It classifies advance payment methods into self-owned and third party by whether the user and issuer have close relationship. Even though the classification terms are different, it uses the same criteria to see if the user is limited to issuer only. Therefore, we could use the same idea to identify whether the user and issuer have close relationship by Payment Services Act in Japan. Under the same classification criteria, one adopts single-track system while the other adopts double-track system. The study will set a supervision boundary from the payment service concept to determine which one is more appropriated. In addition, both the Electronic Payment Institution Management Regulations in our country and the Payment Services Act in Japan belong to the payment regulatory framework. Apart from sharing a similar legislative history from the perspective of integrating the virtual and real worlds, they also have similar regulatory goals. However, there are differences in legislative structure, admission requirements, and funds preservation regulations. The study will analyze the appropriateness of the supervision regulation from the prospective of proportionate approach and seeking supervision balance.

Keywords: Payment Services Act in Japan, Advance Payment Methods, Single-purpose, Multi-purpose, Payment Service, Supervision Goal, Proportionate Approach

壹、前言
貳、以日本支付服務法做為比較研究對象之契機
一、相同的分類不同的規範方式
（一）我國法對於預付型支付工具之分類與規範方式
（二）日本支付服務法對於預付型支付工具之分類與規範方式
（三）不同的規範方式可能產生之問題
二、監理規範之沿革與立法目的
（一）監理規範之沿革
（二）立法目的：金融監理目標之確立
三、小結
參、預付型支付工具規範方式之檢討
一、單用途與多用途使用之界定
（一）現行法規範上之問題
（二）實務判決上之認定
（三）日本自家型與第三人型之分類標準
（四）比較法上之借鏡
二、日本支付服務法之規範方式：單軌制
（一）規範對象
（二）第三人型預付式支付工具：事前登記制
（三）自家型預付式支付工具：事後申報制
（四）差異性之監理規範
三、我國規範方式：雙軌制之妥適性
（一）監理界限：支付服務業務之界定
（二）單用途預付型支付工具之本質與規範方式之檢討
（三）第三方發行禮券規範方式之檢討
四、小結
肆、 預付型支付工具監理規範內容之檢討
一、理論基礎：酌情監理原則
二、立法結構之檢討
三、准入規定之妥適性
（一）組織型態之要求
（二）資本額之要求
四、儲值款項保全規範之妥適性
（一）儲值款項與代理收付款項合併規範之疑義
（二）儲值款項運用之限制
（三）繳存準備金之必要性
（四）設置清償基金之必要性
五、小結
伍、結論

由於111年憲判字第13號僅分別就全民健康保險法第79條、第80條及個人資料保護法第6條第4項第1款進行違憲審查，而分別得出健保署之健保資料庫建置與管理，欠缺法律明確規定，違反憲法第23條法律保留原則之要求，以及個資法作為個資保護的框架性規範，並非專為健保資料庫建置而設，而得出個資法第6條第4項第1款與法律明確性原則、比例原則尚屬無違。因此，111憲判13除了指出相關法制欠缺當事人得請求停止利用其健保個資之相關規定，係屬違憲外，幾乎未對健保資料庫建置與運用之個資保護法制應如何設計，具有指引之效。本文認為健康資料之二次使用已為全球智慧醫療產業發展之趨勢，且只要優化個資保護法制之設計，健康資料庫之建置甚至能帶給資訊隱私權更好的保護效果。本文乃基於111憲判13、人體生物資料庫管理條例，以及相關比較法觀察，提供未來健保資料二次使用之個資保護立法建議。

關鍵詞：全民健康保險資料庫、111年憲判字第13號判決、個人資料保護法、資訊隱私、健康資料、資料治理

In Taiwan Constitutional Court Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-13, the legal issue under judicial view was—whether Articles 79 and 80 of the National Health Insurance Act and Article 6, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Personal Data Protection Act were in breach of the Constitutional Law. The Constitutional Court decided in said judgment that—(1) the National Health Insurance Administration’s establishment and management of the health database was conducted without an express authorization by laws and therefore was in breach of the principle of legal reservation as stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution; and (2) the Personal Data Protection Act was enacted to serve as a baseline protection for information privacy and was not only for the health database; Article 6, Paragraph 1, Item 4 is therefore not in breach of the principle of legal certainty and principle of proportionality. While said judgment has ruled that the relevant regulations are in breach of the Constitutional Law for lacking appropriate regime in providing individuals to stop others from using their own personal data, there is little guidance provided in said judgment as to what is the appropriate regulatory mechanism for purpose of protecting health data if such data will be processed in a health database organization. This article proposes that while the collection and usage of health data has become an important part of developing smart health industry and it is a global trend to build up heath database, it is more practical to look for approaches to improve the infrastructure of personal data protection; with an improved and better structured health database for matters of information privacy protection, the database might be able to offer an enhanced level for protection personal data. This article proposes that, in designing an appropriate protection regime in the future, the Human Biobank Management Act can be referred to as a model with appropriate amendments made with reference to the comparative law study.

Keywords: National Health Insurance Research Databases, Personal Data Protection Act, Taiwan Constitutional Court Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-13, Information Privacy, Health Data, Data Governance

壹、前言
貳、111年憲判字第13號判決之整述
一、事實背景
二、審查範圍及判決主文
（一）審查範圍
（二）判決主文
三、判決理由
（一）個資法§6I④、健保法§§79、80限制資料主體受憲法第22條保障之資訊隱私權
（二）個資法§6I④未違反法律明確性原則
（三）個資法§6I④未違反比例原則
（四）未設置個資保護之獨立監督機制，對資訊隱私權之保障有所不足，而有違憲之虞：合憲宣告之警告性裁判
（五）健保法§§79、80不足以作為健保資料庫設置之法律依據，有違憲法第23條法律保留原則要求
（六）一律未許當事人得請求停止利用其健保個資之規定，違反憲法第22條保障人民資訊隱私權之意旨
參、111憲判13就健保資料二次使用之立法指引
一、111憲判13違憲宣告部分的必要立法回應
（一）修訂健保法或制定專法之立法模式選擇
（二）健保資料二次使用所欠缺之個資保護法制
（三）當事人個資事後控制權之範圍
二、111憲判13合憲宣告部分的立法參考作用
（一）個資法§6I④的合憲宣告部分
（二）個資法（或其他相關法律）欠缺一般性個資保護之獨立監督機制的警告性裁判
肆、健保資料二次使用規範之立法借鑑
一、人體生物資料庫管理條例之借鏡
（一）相異點之比較
（二）共同點之參考
（三）小結
二、比較法的立法啟示
（一）當事人請求停止使用權之設計
（二）去識別化程度之設計
（三）健保資料之高敏感性與醫療衛生研究之高公益性對於個資保護法制設計之影響
伍、健保資料二次使用專法之立法芻議：代結論